16
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2013 SA MINES & ENERGY JOURNAL
FEATURE
SACOME believes a solution
could be for the Federal
Government to utilise bodies --
perhaps Infrastructure Australia
and the Export Finance and
Insurance Corporation (EFIC) -- to
provide funding arrangements
where there is a market failure.
"This solution has proven
successful with the Federal
and State governments
assisting Nyrstar to arrange a
funding agreement with EFIC
to upgrade Nyrstar's Port Pirie
smelter,
" Mr Kuchel says.
Mr Gray agrees there is a case
for the Commonwealth to assist
with infrastructure proposals.
"However, development of
resources projects should be
based on sound commercial
decisions in response to
market demands,
" he says.
"For this reason, infrastructure
development for resources
projects, particularly ports
and rail, is commonly funded
by the private sector.
"
The Coalition agrees that
government involvement
is needed, especially in
developing a deep sea port.
It says it will create a funding
and finance advisory unit within
Infrastructure Australia and
undertake an audit of all federal
and state infrastructure assets
to guide spending decisions.
The Greens flag funding
infrastructure for energy resource
development projects as their
priority over the uranium and fossil
fuel industries, calling for $30 billion
over 10 years to address this.
Another major hindrance to the
advancement of projects is the
duplication of green tape across
State and Federal governments.
A study by the Australian
National University found in
the first 10 years since the
Commonwealth's project approval
laws under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation (EPBC) Act, an extra
$820 million had been added to
the cost of approvals -- for no
extra environmental protection.
"At present, resources
companies are exposed to a costly,
drawn-out, duplicated process
that has driven up development
costs and delayed prospective
projects,
" Mr Kuchel says.
SACOME is calling for bilateral
agreements for assessment and
approvals to be established under
the EPBC Act, accrediting the
State environmental assessment
processes -- including the
Program for Environmental
Protection and Rehabilitation
and Statement of Environmental
Objectives -- under the Act
where they satisfy its provisions.
The Act is the Commonwealth
legislative instrument for
protecting areas of National
Environmental Significance.
Both Labor and the Coalition say
they will continue to work with the
State and Territory governments
to eliminate duplications, with
the Coalition going a step
further in promising a "one-stop
shop" to deal with approvals.
"This would include creation
of a single approvals process
for environmental assessment
and approvals under the
EPBC via the State system,
"
Mr Macfarlane explains.
The Greens believe there is "no
compelling evidence" to support
streamlining the process and that
it is "not appropriate for the states
and territories to exercise decision-
making powers for approvals in
relation to matters of national
environmental significance"
.
A policy was expected to
be endorsed at the Council
of Australian Governments
(COAG) in April 2013, but lack of
agreement has led to the policy
being temporarily shelved.
"This is a missed opportunity; a
single process would streamline
environmental assessments
and approvals, and bilateral
agreements will not 'devalue'
environmental protection, as
State processes would need to be
consistent with the EPBC Act to
gain accreditation,
" Mr Kuchel says.
A system that has been reformed
by Labor is that of Native Title,
with the transference of certain
functions from the National Native
Title Tribunal to the Federal Court.
The government, however,
flagged a cease in funding
to the respondent scheme
at the end of 2012.
"This limits the capability of
SACOME and other State bodies
to assist and determine Indigenous
Land Use Agreements with native
title claimants, resulting in a sub-
standard system,
" Mr Kuchel says.
SACOME is calling for an increase
in resources and funding to the
Tribunal and Court so outstanding
Native Title claims can be resolved
in a timely manner, a point with
which the Greens strongly agree.
The Coalition agrees that "things
should be as fair, as efficient
and as accessible as possible
for all concerned"
, while Labor
believes its reform was sufficient
and "will contribute to the more
timely resolution of claims"
.
The political rhetoric of promised
consultation and in-principle
support makes it difficult for anyone
to clearly determine who is best
to lead our industry beyond 2013.
One thing is certain: the political
parties must listen to the urgent
calls of junior minerals and oil
and gas players that make up the
majority of the South Australian
industry and commit to visionary
policies to allow our resources
and energy sectors to thrive.
Policy
Labor
Coalition Greens
Comments
Exploration Tax Credit
×
½*
×
*Budget constraints
Infrastructure


½*
*Energy infrastructure only
PRRT (Contiguous licences)
×
½*
×
*Will review if elected
PRRT (Low Profit Offset)
×
½*
×
*Will review if elected
MRRT
×

×
EPBC Act


×
Native Title Tribunal
½*
½*

*Budget funding; already timely
Climate Change

×
×
Exploration Deductibility
×
×
×
Diesel Fuel Credit


×
Resources
companies are
exposed to a
costly, drawn-out,
duplicated process
that has driven
up development
costs
Marks are based on whether the responses received by parties are generally positive or negative rather than whether they meet SACOME's expectations.